Challenge: Get Vermont to vote Republican again

[Clark Kent]

Vermont used to be one of the most Republican states in the country. From 1856 to 1960, it voted Republican in every single presidential election, the longest streak in American history. It voted Democratic for the first time when it went for Lyndon Johnson in 1964, and then voted Republican again from 1968-1988. Only since 1992 has it been one of the most Democratic states in the country. Your challenge is to make Vermont vote Republican again in the near future without significantly changing either Vermont or the national party. Both can still change, but it has to be plausible, so no "nuclear fallout kills all Vermont Democrats" or "Republican Party shifts to the left of the Democrats and becomes ultra-socialist".

[Figueira]

The easiest answer is "the Democratic candidate completely implodes and loses every state including Vermont."

[Rockefeller GOP]

Vermont isn't just more Democratic than it's ever been, it's more liberal.  There's a sizable "Take Back Vermont" movement, and if you talk to older Vermonters (keep in mind even in the biggest Democratic landslides, you have about 40% supporting the Republican), you'll notice they're not as pleased with the trend of the '70s, '80s and '90s, which saw liberal New Yorkers (Howard Dean, anyone?) and folks escaping Taxachusetts and Connecticut to go to the scenic and rather "undisturbed" Vermont.  There have also been quite a few VT Republicans and former Republicans who have been turned off by social conservatives gaining more influence in the GOP.  Combine those two things and you get a Democratic VT.

So, you'd need BOTH of these to happen to get VT back in the Republican column:

1) The GOP to become significantly more moderate on cultural and social issues.

2) An influx of more conservative voters and/or more liberal voters moving away.

[Abraham Reagan]

Hillary Clinton barely ekes out a primary win against Bernie Sanders for the Dem nomination. Sanders decides to run as an independent in the general election. This splits the Democratic vote in VT, while the Republican candidate manages bring up the GOP share to 35%.

Final tally
35%-GOP Candidate
34%-Hillary Clinton
31%-Bernie Sanders

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Democratic Party wants to ban cow farms in sop to PETA activists.

Republican Party announce massive maple syrup subsidy to knock those rotten Canucks in the gonads.

[/]

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

Have the Republicans stop being the party of Southern white racists would certainly help.

[RINO Tom]

Have the Republicans stop being the party of Southern white racists would certainly help.

Brilliant.  The RNC should just announce your post in a teleconference, it really is that simple.

"We are no longer the party of Southern white racists!!"

Then VT would be in play.

[ElectionsGuy]

Bernie Sanders would need to run against Clinton as an Independent, and the Republican would need to be socially moderate/liberal. In any normal case, you would need a completely different Republican and Democratic parties. As long as the current political climate continues, Vermont isn't voting Republican.

[PJ]

Even if Republicans were to restructure themselves as a party of socially liberal "Rockefeller Republicans," Vermont is too far gone for them at this point. We are talking about the state that banned fracking, tried to implement single payer healthcare, and has been represented in congress by Bernie Sanders since the 90's. The only way for Vermont to change its voting patterns is one of the largest factors that pushed it towards the Democrats in the first place: large scale migration from the opposing party into the state.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

Vermont isn't just more Democratic than it's ever been, it's more liberal.  There's a sizable "Take Back Vermont" movement, and if you talk to older Vermonters (keep in mind even in the biggest Democratic landslides, you have about 40% supporting the Republican), you'll notice they're not as pleased with the trend of the '70s, '80s and '90s, which saw liberal New Yorkers (Howard Dean, anyone?) and folks escaping Taxachusetts and Connecticut to go to the scenic and rather "undisturbed" Vermont.  There have also been quite a few VT Republicans and former Republicans who have been turned off by social conservatives gaining more influence in the GOP.  Combine those two things and you get a Democratic VT.

So, you'd need BOTH of these to happen to get VT back in the Republican column:

1) The GOP to become significantly more moderate on cultural and social issues.

2) An influx of more conservative voters and/or more liberal voters moving away.

Here's what I don't get...if it's really demographic changes during that time that caused VT to go Dem, how did Johnson not only win it in '64, but win it by a bigger margin than his national one?

I think demographic changes played some role, but something else happened.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Vermont isn't just more Democratic than it's ever been, it's more liberal.  There's a sizable "Take Back Vermont" movement, and if you talk to older Vermonters (keep in mind even in the biggest Democratic landslides, you have about 40% supporting the Republican), you'll notice they're not as pleased with the trend of the '70s, '80s and '90s, which saw liberal New Yorkers (Howard Dean, anyone?) and folks escaping Taxachusetts and Connecticut to go to the scenic and rather "undisturbed" Vermont.  There have also been quite a few VT Republicans and former Republicans who have been turned off by social conservatives gaining more influence in the GOP.  Combine those two things and you get a Democratic VT.

So, you'd need BOTH of these to happen to get VT back in the Republican column:

1) The GOP to become significantly more moderate on cultural and social issues.

2) An influx of more conservative voters and/or more liberal voters moving away.

Here's what I don't get...if it's really demographic changes during that time that caused VT to go Dem, how did Johnson not only win it in '64, but win it by a bigger margin than his national one?

I think demographic changes played some role, but something else happened.

Something else did happen, and that was my second point.  But people can't make statements like "VT went solid Dem in '64" or "MS went solid GOP in '72" with any real point attached because so did every other state...

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

Vermont isn't just more Democratic than it's ever been, it's more liberal.  There's a sizable "Take Back Vermont" movement, and if you talk to older Vermonters (keep in mind even in the biggest Democratic landslides, you have about 40% supporting the Republican), you'll notice they're not as pleased with the trend of the '70s, '80s and '90s, which saw liberal New Yorkers (Howard Dean, anyone?) and folks escaping Taxachusetts and Connecticut to go to the scenic and rather "undisturbed" Vermont.  There have also been quite a few VT Republicans and former Republicans who have been turned off by social conservatives gaining more influence in the GOP.  Combine those two things and you get a Democratic VT.

So, you'd need BOTH of these to happen to get VT back in the Republican column:

1) The GOP to become significantly more moderate on cultural and social issues.

2) An influx of more conservative voters and/or more liberal voters moving away.

Here's what I don't get...if it's really demographic changes during that time that caused VT to go Dem, how did Johnson not only win it in '64, but win it by a bigger margin than his national one?

I think demographic changes played some role, but something else happened.

Something else did happen, and that was my second point.  But people can't make statements like "VT went solid Dem in '64" or "MS went solid GOP in '72" with any real point attached because so did every other state...

But it's of interest whether a state goes for the party by a bigger or smaller margin than the nation as a whole did. Vermont had never voted for a Democrat, but voted for LBJ over Goldwater by a 32-point margin as opposed to the national 23-point margin. If LBJ'S Vermont margin had been the same or less than his national margin, then I agree it wouldn't really be of interest. Something about Goldwater really turned off New England voters a generation before New England would actually be thought of as Democratic region.

[Mechaman]

Vermont isn't just more Democratic than it's ever been, it's more liberal.  There's a sizable "Take Back Vermont" movement, and if you talk to older Vermonters (keep in mind even in the biggest Democratic landslides, you have about 40% supporting the Republican), you'll notice they're not as pleased with the trend of the '70s, '80s and '90s, which saw liberal New Yorkers (Howard Dean, anyone?) and folks escaping Taxachusetts and Connecticut to go to the scenic and rather "undisturbed" Vermont.  There have also been quite a few VT Republicans and former Republicans who have been turned off by social conservatives gaining more influence in the GOP.  Combine those two things and you get a Democratic VT.

So, you'd need BOTH of these to happen to get VT back in the Republican column:

1) The GOP to become significantly more moderate on cultural and social issues.

2) An influx of more conservative voters and/or more liberal voters moving away.

Here's what I don't get...if it's really demographic changes during that time that caused VT to go Dem, how did Johnson not only win it in '64, but win it by a bigger margin than his national one?

I think demographic changes played some role, but something else happened.

Something else did happen, and that was my second point.  But people can't make statements like "VT went solid Dem in '64" or "MS went solid GOP in '72" with any real point attached because so did every other state...

But it's of interest whether a state goes for the party by a bigger or smaller margin than the nation as a whole did. Vermont had never voted for a Democrat, but voted for LBJ over Goldwater by a 32-point margin as opposed to the national 23-point margin. If LBJ'S Vermont margin had been the same or less than his national margin, then I agree it wouldn't really be of interest. Something about Goldwater really turned off New England voters a generation before New England would actually be thought of as Democratic region.

Civil Rights issue, duh.  Goldwater's stance on the 1964 Civil Rights Act, even if he had an exceptional record before, kind of made him political poison to New Englanders.  It didn't even help him with working class racists who preferred the Democratic Party normally because a) his economic record was also very right wing (New England blue collars were/probably still are some of the most unionized groups in American society), and b) they really didn't see the point of it as minorities in general knew to avoid "that part of town" anyway.

Really, the 1960's GOP chose some of the worst candidates to appeal to New Englanders.  In 1960 they decided to nominate Nixon/Lodge.  Nixon got his name from being a huge red baiter and an advocate of conservatism (I got to laugh at people who think he was the more liberal candidate in 1960, I mean come on) while the Lodge name wasn't exactly as grand as it used to be in Massachusetts (many ethnics would reflexively vote against anyone whose last name was "Lodge" and even many New England WASPs would vote for Kennedy because of his moderate pragmatic record and the prestige his record brought the region.  Really, a no winner).  Of course, Lodge was nominated largely for his foreign policy accolades more than anything as Nixon desperately needed a runningmate who could make him look good on international issues as well as carry some appeal with more moderate and liberal Republicans.

1964 was even worse, as Goldwater's extreme right wing views turned off most moderate and liberal New Englanders in droves.  If they weren't outraged by his Civil Rights views they would certainly be outraged by his economic ones (hell, Alaska voted against him in landslide margins because he wouldn't even support disaster relief for the state after the 1964 Anchorage Earthquake).  Really, here is where you got a generation of people in New England who were strongly opposed to Republicanism and I think I heard somewhere that Massachusetts is one of the only states in the union where people over 65 vote more Democratic than any other age group.

1968?  Well, Nixon again with Agnew versus Hubert Humphrey and Edmund Muskie.  This time it was more advantage Democrat than it was the GOP ticket being unappealing (though that did have some effect).  Muskie was a well known and popular "moderate" governor of Maine who was on the forefront of the environmental reform movement.  Humphrey was, in addition to being a champion of Civil Rights, one of the biggest cheerleaders of organized labor and one of the key advocates for the AFL-CIO.  It also didn't help that Nixon made a point of bashing intellectual "elites" and had a hardon for Harvard.  Thus again, the GOP chose candidates that did not appeal to moderate upper class whites who in the past voted for them largely on the Civil Rights issue and at the same time could not appeal to somewhat reactionary working class whites who were still pretty favorable to Democratic dominated unions.

In 1972, when the widely reviled by unions but still closet commie George McGovern was nominated by Democrats, that gave the GOP an opening with upper middle class folk and pro-union working class whites and united them against a made up strawman of radical intellectuals, closet homos, uppity non-whites taking their new freedoms for granted, and Harvard Alumni.

That's at least what I'm theorizing.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

What's next? "Get Alabama to vote Democratic again"?

[H. Ross Peron]

Considering a big part (though not the sole reason) of Vermont's partisan shift was the migration of urbanites from New York and elsewhere changing the originally largely homogenous rural Yankee Protestant population, one possibility might be if Vermont becomes an attractive state for "white flight" for Anglo suburbanites who find the increasing racial diversity of the Sunbelt unattractive-ie something akin to Californians fleeing to Montana, Idaho, Arizona, Nevada etc. Not exactly the most plausible scenario, but the only one really besides the cliché "GOP turning social liberal" scenario.

[Clark Kent]

What's next? "Get Alabama to vote Democratic again"?

Why not? Though I'd go for Arkansas, since it has a longer Democratic streak (1876 to 1964 or 1968 if you count the AIP as Democratic).

[TDAS04]

Vermont isn't just more Democratic than it's ever been, it's more liberal.  There's a sizable "Take Back Vermont" movement, and if you talk to older Vermonters (keep in mind even in the biggest Democratic landslides, you have about 40% supporting the Republican), you'll notice they're not as pleased with the trend of the '70s, '80s and '90s, which saw liberal New Yorkers (Howard Dean, anyone?) and folks escaping Taxachusetts and Connecticut to go to the scenic and rather "undisturbed" Vermont.  There have also been quite a few VT Republicans and former Republicans who have been turned off by social conservatives gaining more influence in the GOP.  Combine those two things and you get a Democratic VT.

So, you'd need BOTH of these to happen to get VT back in the Republican column:

1) The GOP to become significantly more moderate on cultural and social issues.

2) An influx of more conservative voters and/or more liberal voters moving away.

Here's what I don't get...if it's really demographic changes during that time that caused VT to go Dem, how did Johnson not only win it in '64, but win it by a bigger margin than his national one?

I think demographic changes played some role, but something else happened.

Something else did happen, and that was my second point.  But people can't make statements like "VT went solid Dem in '64" or "MS went solid GOP in '72" with any real point attached because so did every other state...

Vermont was more Democratic than the national popular vote for the first time in 1964.  Mississippi was the most Republican state in 1972 (as it was in 1964).

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Republicans nominate a moderate candidate who is liberal on most social issues.

Both can still change, but it has to be plausible, so no "nuclear fallout kills all Vermont Democrats" or "Republican Party shifts to the left of the Democrats and becomes ultra-socialist".

Never mind that one of Vermont's senators is a socialist.

[DS0816]

The easiest answer is "the Democratic candidate completely implodes and loses every state including Vermont."

^ Basically, it's the kind of scenario of what New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie—prior to the scandalous reveal of Bridgegate—dreamed of parlaying, with his 2013 re-election of statewide numbers, into a blockbuster of a national presidential landslide.

[The Mikado]

For one election only? Simple: Have Sanders run third party. If the Republican could get ~40% of the vote in Vermont, that could win in a three way race.

[Mr. Illini]

(keep in mind even in the biggest Democratic landslides, you have about 40% supporting the Republican)

Romney barely got 30% in Vermont

[smoltchanov]

(keep in mind even in the biggest Democratic landslides, you have about 40% supporting the Republican)

Romney barely got 30% in Vermont

31%. And Phil Scott managed to get 57% the same year. And 62% in 2014. So - it's quite possible. But you need to be Phil Scott for it.....))

[ag]

Vermont isn't just more Democratic than it's ever been, it's more liberal.  There's a sizable "Take Back Vermont" movement, and if you talk to older Vermonters (keep in mind even in the biggest Democratic landslides, you have about 40% supporting the Republican), you'll notice they're not as pleased with the trend of the '70s, '80s and '90s, which saw liberal New Yorkers (Howard Dean, anyone?) and folks escaping Taxachusetts and Connecticut to go to the scenic and rather "undisturbed" Vermont.  There have also been quite a few VT Republicans and former Republicans who have been turned off by social conservatives gaining more influence in the GOP.  Combine those two things and you get a Democratic VT.

So, you'd need BOTH of these to happen to get VT back in the Republican column:

1) The GOP to become significantly more moderate on cultural and social issues.

2) An influx of more conservative voters and/or more liberal voters moving away.

Here's what I don't get...if it's really demographic changes during that time that caused VT to go Dem, how did Johnson not only win it in '64, but win it by a bigger margin than his national one?

I think demographic changes played some role, but something else happened.

Something else did happen, and that was my second point.  But people can't make statements like "VT went solid Dem in '64" or "MS went solid GOP in '72" with any real point attached because so did every other state...

But it's of interest whether a state goes for the party by a bigger or smaller margin than the nation as a whole did. Vermont had never voted for a Democrat, but voted for LBJ over Goldwater by a 32-point margin as opposed to the national 23-point margin. If LBJ'S Vermont margin had been the same or less than his national margin, then I agree it wouldn't really be of interest. Something about Goldwater really turned off New England voters a generation before New England would actually be thought of as Democratic region.

Well, Goldwater, though Western, was perceived as a candidate of the South. And that is poison in Vermont.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Look it is not inconceivable that Conservatism will find itself a new home and adapt to that new home the same way they did with regards to the South and Southwest. But that only works if there is an influx of people from your old region to help further it along in its initial stages.

So you probably need three things to occur.

1) An influx of people from Sunbelt regions, probably the Southwest driven by drought and hotter temperatures
2) A religious revival, partially fed by the influx mentioned in number 1.
3) A new form of social conservatism that emphasizes personal morality more so then than gov't enforced morality. This would be more in line with the culture of Northern New England.